Rockets

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Look at the photo. Very clearly there are people > blocking anyone turning right from the main road > into Calton Ave. > > They could have had their protest without blocking > people using the supposedly ?closed? road. But > they wanted to get lots of honks from those > driving by, whilst they called for less car > pollution and protested restricting access as they > blocked those turning right. With no sense of > irony. Rahx3 - we can only presume you weren't trying to cycle through Margy Square at the weekend as that band playing in the road was blocking the road far more than the aged protestors a couple of weeks ago you were complaining about...

Don't we all. But unfortunately the only way to get it in Southwark is to move to street within the LTN area. And the irony is the majority of people who live within the main tranche of the LTN closures around Dulwich Village don't want it either as they know that whilst they live with less traffic and less pollution someone a few streets away has to live with more. LTNs are so flawed that the council hasn't even been able to convince the people benefitting from them the most that they are a good thing......

Northern - my bad I missed that passing reference to the Underhill data collection on Page 34 of the main report as I was looking at the Traffic Flow analysis and Data collection timings detailed reports - neither of which even mention Underhill Road or Barry Road. That's a bit odd is it not? Any idea why there is no reference to Underhill or Barry Road in the main detailed reports sharing the data they collected via monitoring? It seems as if they have done a cursory - "Underhill went up 3%" but not given any further info to back-up that claim - they don't even detail when the pre-Covid data was collected.

DC - two things: Firstly, the council stated in their interim monitoring report that traffic was down 12% across Southwark. So are we actually running at a 2% increase compared to the borough average? Secondly, and perhaps more damning, is that the council's monitoring data is incomplete - no monitoring data has been shared or included for Underhill Road, which, I am sure you realise, is one of the key displacement routes for traffic trying to cut the corner from Lordship Lane to avoid the Grove Tavern/A205 daily traffic jam. Anyone can see that Underhill's traffic has increased hugely since the LTNs went in and it was vital that monitoring should have been included in the "area-wide" monitoring numbers the council produced. The council didn't add them - I wonder why not? The council was forced to add monitoring to Underhill by irate residents who had seen they were planning not to count there during the review and promised to include the data in the review. I wholly suspect that once Underhill is included in the council's data that the 10% reduction quickly evaporates and turns the area-wide decrease into an increase.

18 months in and there is not a sign that what you say happens is happening. In fact, there isn't an LTN anywhere that has not displaced traffic from one set of roads to another - the traffic doesn't evaporate it displaces. LTNs are failing. That much is abundantly clear.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, frivolous car usage must go Given the LTNs were designed to eliminate frivolous car use, after 18 months of them being in I think we can safely assume that either 1) there wasn't much frivolous car use in the area or 2) they don't eliminate frivolous car use. Either way there is a strong argument for removing them and starting again with something far more fit for purpose.

P3girl - do keep us posted on the council's feedback to your budget submission - it will be very interesting to see how Southwark responds! Also refreshing to see a local interest group that doesn't block responses to tweets like your good friends at Clean Air Dulwich do! I am getting to the point of exasperation with the council and might superglue myself to a cycle lane until the council starts taking note and addressing our concerns! The good thing about gluing ourselves to cycle lanes is we won't be blocking emergency services and putting lives at risk like Insulate Britain and Southwark council do in their efforts to deal with climate change ;-)

I do worry that there are now too many outlets selling the same/similar thing. I do know that if the sun isn't shining and the weather lovely then there isn't enough trade to go around between the existing ones yet alone with a new one adding yet more competition. Maybe this is part of the Southwark Labour grand plan - they want to, ahem, gentrify Dulwich Village and fill it full of coffee shops and estate agents!

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In case anyone wants to comment > > https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment > -leisure/goodrichreview/ > > Consultation closes 17 October. You wonder whether it is worth it. On the one hand if you tell them what they don't want to hear they will ignore you. Even when you do do respond positively to something that aligns with their agenda (Dulwich Village ATM removal) they grandstand and claim victory for doing something they didn't actually manage to achieve! Makes you wonder what the purpose of consultations actually is.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here?s the formal decision on the revised Dulwich > proposals, includes a summary of responses > received on the revised proposal > > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1020 > 48/Record%20of%20Decison.pdf > > Come on LDs on the scrutiny commission - call it > in for further discussion on the decision making > process! How can we leverage the LDs to do something? I know they support the strategic intent of the LTNs but can't be happy with the way Labour have handled the consultation. Can James Barber help provide some info on who to try to influence on this? This borough council desperately needs some vocal opposition.

Otto2 - nice in theory, completely impractical in practice. Granted, local deliveries can be done by the Pedal Me teams but a house move on a bike - what are they moving, a wendy-house - there's reason removals lorries are as big as they are? There is not an increase in private cars in London. In fact, private car ownership continues to fall in the capital - even the Guardian admits as much - it is the rise of Uber and delivery vehicles that are causing the problem (the article stats van journeys in London are up 25%): https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/how-london-got-rid-of-private-cars-and-grew-more-congested-than-ever This is why blocking the roads with LTNs makes the problem worse as delivery drivers have to navigate around closures - they still make the journey. And people are returning to public transport - quicker than anyone expected. I have been very surprised how busy the tubes have been, especially at weekends, the past few weeks. Confidence in public transport is returning. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58360193

I wouldn't worry - as long as none of your neighbours complain I am sure you will be fine.

Rahx3 - did you read the article beyond the headline? It's often a good idea to, especially with Guardian articles.... ?The massive increase in traffic on C roads is probably due to a combination of home shopping and van-based home services,? said King. The greater use of satnavs to avoid traffic congestion was also a likely factor, he said. Personally, I think home deliveries are probably the biggest contributor - granted Waze etc do not help but they still tend to take people down what used to be known as rat-runs - they don't just direct people around side streets for the sake of it. If I remember rightly, the biggest increases in vehicle type on London roads have been seen in delivery vehicles - vans etc. On the subject on other LTNs does anyone know how the LTN's the Guys and St Thomas' Trust were funding are going as they were doing proper analysis on things like displacement?

I thought teachers could only take time off during school holidays - or am I wrong on that? Anyway, you mention Leeming and Margy....this tweet from Margy is hilarious..... I would suggest Margy didn't witness the removal of the ATM on Friday as I am sure, if she had, she wouldn't have allowed Southwark Labour to send the grandstanding tweet on the following Tuesday embarrassing her boss....#awks......

Duncan - I am afraid you do. Back-gardens are not a problem but anything in the front of the house needs a planning application. You need to submit a householder application via this link: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-applications/submitting-a-planning-application?chapter=3 But that's when it starts getting messy as I paid my ?234, paid for documents from the land registry, submitted my application and then got the response below saying my application was invalid. It's absolute madness......it is utterly impenetrable unless you get an architect/design company involved - which will probably cost 5 times more than the bike shed itself........ A 1:2500 or 1:1250 scale site plan is required showing the site and surroundings. The boundaries of the application site must be edged in red. Any other land within the applicant's control must be edged in blue on the site plan. 2 Drawings of all existing floor plans are required. The scale shown on the submitted plan(s) should state the paper size at which the scale applies, e.g Scale 1:100 at A3. The plan(s) should also display a scale bar. This information is required to avoid errors and misinterpretation due to variations and accuracy associated with the copying and printing of plans that have been stored electronically. 3 Drawings of all existing elevation plans are required. The scale shown on the submitted plan(s) should state the paper size at which the scale applies, e.g Scale 1:100 at A3. The plan(s) should also display a scale bar. This information is required to avoid errors and misinterpretation due to variations and accuracy associated with the copying and printing of plans that have been stored electronically. 4 Drawings of all proposed floor plans are required. The scale shown on the submitted plan(s) should state the paper size at which the scale applies, e.g Scale 1:100 at A3. The Southwark Council, PO BOX 64529, London SE1P 5LX ? southwark.gov.uk ? facebook.com/southwarkcouncil ? twitter.com/lb_southwark plan(s) should also display a scale bar. This information is required to avoid errors and misinterpretation due to variations and accuracy associated with the copying and printing of plans that have been stored electronically. 5 Drawings of all proposed elevation plans are required. The scale shown on the submitted plan(s) should state the paper size at which the scale applies, e.g Scale 1:100 at A3. The plan(s) should also display a scale bar. This information is required to avoid errors and misinterpretation due to variations and accuracy associated with the copying and printing of plans that have been stored

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes it does require planning. I just parted with > ?234 for the pleasure. Apparently the council > views the applications favourably but do require > you to pay for the pleasure - a bit surprised they > don't waive the fee for bike storage given their > commitment to active travel and their inability to > satiate the demand for cycle hoops. An update on this. Submitted the application and got a response saying that the submission wasn't right and was returned. It seems you need architect plans for any planning submission all drawn to scale with different aspect ratios etc. Really don't have the time or money to get someone to come and draw up plans for a bike shed. I appreciate the council has a planning process to follow but this seems ludicrous - the expense you would need to go to if you want to embrace active travel. Now in the process of cancelling the bike shed and Asgard told me that many people are in the same position in that councils want planning submitted for front garden bike sheds and the planning process is not built for such applications. They said many customers just install them anyway but then have problems if any neighbours complain. It would be good if the council could streamline/simplify the application process for bike sheds if they really want people to embrace active travel - they have to make active travel easier to embrace for those that don't have side returns or huge back gardens.

Legal - I agree. A lot of the "increase" in residential traffic that is touted by the pro-LTN lobby is being driven, no pun intended, by the move to online delivery services - and they will still deliver whether a street has an LTN or not.

Finally we have agreement....! But apparently local car journeys are not as big an issue in Dulwich as other parts of Southwark as, in the same report as the PTAL scores, it said 68% of local journeys were already active travel. Again, it begs the question why LTNs were chosen for Dulwich - it makes no sense at all. Talking about questions, this dropped through our door today from Dulwich Alliance - what they are doing is so important as the council buried some many of the key facts from their propaganda document, sorry Review report, that leaflet drops are the only mechanism DA have to shine light on the council's manipulation of the report. Many people I have spoken to are so angry with the council for the way that they have hoodwinked the residents of Dulwich and I suspect many who receive this leaflet will feel the same way. DA are right - we have been conned.

Ah ha...that's where he is and no doubt why he isn't responding ;-) Isn't he a primary school teacher though - do union reps/activists get time off from schools during term-time?

They are at BP in Forest Hill - ?35 per customer.

Rahx3 - not diversionary at all - it is you who are trying to convince (yourself maybe) that Dulwich has good transport links. It hasn't - at best they are moderate but large parts of Dulwich has poor accessibility to public transport. We are not saying you shouldn't try to reduce car use just the means that the council has chosen is utterly inappropriate for an area with poor/moderate PTAL scores. It is one of the worst served areas in London (certainly within the north and south circular) on the basis of PTAL scores - just look at the TFL PTAL score link I posted - it's all there for you to see in glorious technicolour - darker areas are good, lighter areas are bad. It is about now someone will probably come on and say: "but PTAL scores are not reflective and shouldn't be used, blah, blah blah" but here is how TFL defines them.... "PTALS are a detailed and accurate measure of the accessibility of a point to the public transport network, taking into account walk access time and service availability. The method is essentially a way of measuring the density of the public transport network at any location within Greater London." Maybe you should ask some of your peer-reviewed research lobbyists to do analysis on the PTAL tipping point - the point at which LTNs do more damage than good. I suspect, though, that someone has done that before as Southwark was originally recommending that LTNs only go in in areas with high PTAL scores.

It does seem to be the case that getting there early helps. I got to the BP in Forest Hill (thanks Dave for the tip) by just after 8 and it took about 15 mins but by the time I left it had got a lot more chaotic and the queue was much longer. The Shell at the top of Sydenham Hill on the way to Crystal Palace was also open this morning.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rahx3 - stop this nonsense about good transport > > links - you know that is not true. > > I pointed out that we don?t have one of the worst > PTALs in London. Another assertion by the > scientifically rigorous contributor who denies the > existence of peer reviewed research by other > academics. The PTAL for most of Dulwich is rated > ?moderate? (by London standards, which are > generally high). I would love to see improvements. > But how good does local transport have to be > before you attempt to reduce car use? Around 40% > of car journeys in London are under 2 miles as we > know. It?s an absolute cop out to say, we > shouldn?t tackle casual car use until we have , > what? A PTAL of 4, 5? > Heartblock is talking of banning cars entirely > when PTAL improves.. improves to what?! Would you > support that? It?s absolute nonsense. Rahx3 - read it again: "Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich." The PTAL for Dulwich Village is 2 - that is poor (per the PTAL definition, 2 is poor, 3 is moderate) - Dulwich Village is where the council have made the focal point for the LTNs and put the most disruptive LTN in - that makes no sense. The council asserted many moons ago that LTNs should only be put in place in areas with high PTAL scores. Even the areas closest to the station "only" reach a 3 which is moderate. And then the council's report goes on to say: "This is confirmed also by more general DfT accessibility statistics which show that, in general the area has a lower public transport accessibility level than the remainder of Southwark whilst by car it tends to be on par with the other parts of the borough or somewhat higher for hospitals, particularly due to the proximity of Dulwich Community Hospital." Even that suggests that whilst we don't have the good PTAL scores of other parts of Southwark our car use is on a par with those other areas in the borough. So why is Southwark so focussed on Dulwich? You can see the extent of the issue by looking here: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-with-webcat/webcat - look at that huge swathe of poor/moderate PTAL scores around Dulwich and compare it to Camberwell or further north in the borough. You need to start looking at the cause of the problem not the outcome. The pro-LTN lobby focusses solely on the outcome (too much traffic) and says let's stop the traffic that will solve the problem. It doesn't because there is, no acknowledgement of, or action to tackle what the cause of the problem is. It is well documented that areas with poor PTALs have higher car use because there are limited public transport options. - so what happens when you block some roads with LTNs - the traffic goes elsewhere because people cannot use public transport because it is poor? And you don't need a piece of peer-reviewed research to understand that.

Rahx3 - stop this nonsense about good transport links - you know that is not true. Southwark's own words...... PTAL is a measure of accessibility used by TfL based on distance and frequency of public transport. The areas with a high level of public transport accessibility usually score 5, 6a or 6b on the PTAL scale, whilst areas with very low levels of public transport accessibility will score 0, 1a or 1b. The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don't have any issue with banning cars - if > > there is a decent public service and no closed > > roads - the problem is that LTNs DO NOT reduce > car > > use...or pollution. > > You keep saying that LTNs don't reduce car use, > but all the available evidence suggests that they > do. We have very good public transport compared to > 90% of the country - several train stations, lot's > of buses, electric hire bikes, and thanks to the > introduction of a small number of LTNS, even a > few, relatively quiet walking and cycling routes. They reduce car journeys (not use - that is an important qualification as there is no proof that people living within them use their cars any less) WITHIN the closed area but increase car journeys OUTSIDE of them. That, in a nutshell, is the Achilles heel of every LTN. And Rahx3 - have you been smoking something strong with your suggestion we have good public transport links - even the council admits the transport links in Dulwich are "poor" - their words not mine?